[Top][All Lists]

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

Re: SMIE documentation

From: Stefan Monnier
Subject: Re: SMIE documentation
Date: Mon, 06 Dec 2010 13:26:31 -0500
User-agent: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13) Emacs/24.0.50 (gnu/linux)

>> Because I'd rather not document this yet.  It doesn't have a "smie--"
>> prefix so it's not marked as internal, but it's not really external
>> either (it's set via smie-setup).  I may want to make it internal and/or
>> to change its representation.
> OK. Maybe adding a short comment to that effect would be helpful, to
> prevent more people like me wondering about the reason?

Yes, done, thank you.

>>>> +returns nil or an empty string, SMIE will try to handle the corresponding
>>>> +text as an sexp according to syntax tables.
>>> ^^
>>> a
>> Hmm... In my several years in the states, I spent a fair bit of time
>> hacking on Emacs, but I didn't talk much about sexps (I talked about
>> types instead), so I'm not sure how people pronounce them usually, but
>> I pronounce them "ess-exps", which is why I put an "an" rather than an
>> "a".  So I'd first need confirmation that it's indeed pronouced as
>> something like "sexp".

> Right, I suspected as much. I pronounce "sexp" as written, but I'm not a
> native speaker, so I'd be curious about the prevailing usage, too.  In
> any case, grepping the Emacs repository only reveals three occurences of
> "an sexp", all others (including all Texinfo docs) being "a sexp".

Indeed "a sexp" seems to be the winner.  Not I'll be able to adapt my
pronunciation of it now that I'm used to it (tho it's only pronounced
in my head anyway, not like it matters).


reply via email to

[Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread]